“Clannish” is a term often used to describe the sociological norms of Armenians. Webster defines clannish as a “tendency to associate only with a group of persons like oneself.” It is a fair assessment. Most of our communities in the global Diaspora have been created, matured and sustained by our innate desire to be with each other. Much of our self-reflective anecdotal humor is based on Armenians seeking each other out. We all have looked for Armenians or churches when visiting a new town. Our parents would feel at ease with our social adventures if we were with other Armenian kids. When we bump into other Armenians we don’t know in a mall or restaurant, it leads to a natural sharing of our backgrounds and perhaps an eventual connection. I remember when our son was a freshman at Syracuse and struggling to find his identity. He was comforted by showing up at the local Armenian church and finding support. My colleagues at work would lightly admonish me by saying, “Piligian, I am a proud Irishman, but I don’t get excited when I meet another of the clan.”
Our magnetism has long been considered a unique aspect of our diaspora experience and a key element of our sustainability. We generally view it as having a positive impact and bringing people together to make a difference. This behavior is generally attributed to our relative size and chance encounters. This was particularly true with my generation, when it was common to be the only Armenian in your school and awareness of Armenians was limited. Thankfully, our children live in a society where public visibility and knowledge of Armenian identity is much higher. Still our clannish nature continues, which suggests its source may be deeper in our cultural norms.
Self-assessment and closed-loop improvements are effective methods for maintaining and improving our functionality as a community. Looking in the mirror can be difficult. Sometimes we don’t like what we see, and it can lead to denial. We are a proud people with an incredible array of positive attributes, but self-reflection has been challenging. In reviewing the definition of clannish, I am particularly drawn to the phrase, “persons like oneself.” There are macro interpretations of this, such as the isolation of Armenians living in a host diaspora community. There is also a micro perspective reflected in our intra-communal relations. This manifests in an intolerance of different points of view, limiting collaboration and resulting in sub-optimal performance. Although Armenians in the United States have become a more potent political force, it has been a slow process as the community realizes that defending Armenian interests requires working within the political system of this country. Still, many Armenians are skeptical of the advances made with congressional caucuses through non-binding legislation and political rhetoric. Nevertheless, it is clear that an Armenian-American community active in the U.S. political system benefits Armenia and Armenian interests.
The Diaspora, particularly in the United States, is composed of geographic communities usually centered around churches and a series of political, educational and cultural organizations that give our identity a regional and at times national character. One may be an adherent to a local parish, and at the same time, as a member of the ARS or AGBU, take on a more global identity. There is no doubt that local identity is a pillar in the pyramid of our diaspora presence. The passion and commitment generated by organizations have fueled our notable successes within the Diaspora and for the homeland. Yet transparent self-reflection reveals a few concerns that produce sub-optimization of our limited resources. The challenge is to reflect on whether we advocate for a mission or an organization. The former is the reason to exist while the latter is simply the vehicle.
There are times in a “clannish mode” when the organization is more evident than the mission. A few years ago while I was serving on the NAASR board, there was a discussion about community outreach. Some advocated that we promote NAASR as an organization to increase visibility and support. Others took a more fundamental approach that we should always promote the mission (Armenian studies) to the community first, and the organization (NAASR) will be a beneficiary. At face value, it seems reasonable to promote both, but our intra-communal constraints wall off segments of our community, and we are often labeled by the organization and not the mission. These observations can be subtle but have a long-term impact. There have been certain advances in collaboration and alliances, but if we looked at our world through the lens of a mission rather than what organization one is affiliated with, we would probably be more effective in advocating for the mission. The people at NAASR and all of our organizations are outstanding and dedicated servants to the Armenian community, but we need to be wary of the mission-organizational line. I have found this to be more acute since the independence of Armenia. Utilizing the same model that the Diaspora has used within its communities for engagement with Armenia has produced some heartfelt results but is inefficient. Scores of organizations work independently with Armenia, reflecting our intra-communal model. We need a revision for inter-Armenia relations that reflects efficiency and ease of communication.
Our beloved church also reflects an outdated model of operating in a modern world. The global division in our church has been tolerated for decades, and our thinking now seems to have shifted to cooperating but maintaining our current power and position. We are cordial and even sincerely friendly, but the redundancy and awkwardness is secondary to keeping our own piece of the pie. We hear rhetoric that despite our administrative issues, we are “one church.” In whose eyes? I find it sad and unacceptable that as the impact of assimilation continues and church attendance and participation trends downward, instead of seeking solutions, we have become passively intra-competitive. The united commemoration of the Genocide in 2015 still shakes my soul. We witnessed a joint badarak in Washington with both Catholicoi present and many clergy of the Prelacy and Diocese. It was a beautiful moment. Holy Communion was offered to hundreds of faithful by all clergy. It was the ultimate unification of our Christian people. Yet the next day it was business as usual. We were back to the rhetoric of “one church” while we returned to our walls. If the mission is our reason (Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ), how can we lack the courage?
Our people are so consumed trying to survive that it appears that the energy for bringing us together can only come from the top. A grassroots campaign is not happening. I am not referring only to the U.S. church but the jurisdictional problems that remain frozen and almost forgotten. The Middle East is home to the See of Cilicia, yet Etchmiadzin maintains a diocese in Damascus and Iraq. It seems clear that Aram I and the Holy See produce global leaders for our church, yet the See of Cilicia is underutilized with jurisdictional constraints. It is equally clear that Holy Etchmiadzin is consumed with the homeland and global responsibilities. Given that all hierarchical sees accept the primacy of Holy Etchmiadzin, then why not utilize our resources more effectively by reconfiguring some of the jurisdictions? Naive? Unrealistic? Perhaps, but standing still with the illusion of preserving the status quo has produced decline.
Change is not the enemy. Irrelevance is the enemy. We need to have the courage to find solutions in self-reflection and not fear the results.
To use a sports analogy, our Diaspora sustains performance with adjustments. This is one of the areas of difference with the homeland. Because of its homogenous nature, Armenia can afford the traditions and legacy. In the Diaspora, there is a constant struggle between sustaining identity among the emerging generation and warding off the impact of assimilation. Change is not the enemy. Irrelevance is the enemy. We need to have the courage to find solutions in self-reflection and not fear the results. Ignoring a wound can lead to a more serious impact. The Diaspora must find the organizational will to put aside its obsession with its own pride and focus on the greater mission. There are only two missions that connect us: sustaining a viable Diaspora politically, culturally, religiously and educationally, and contributing to the strengthening of the homeland in the most effective manner possible. In order to ensure success, we must subordinate our organizations, our resources and our energy to these sacred goals. This is less about directing criticism and more about finding a way to improve our yield and the probability of success. Looking ahead to identify potholes on our journey is not always a popular approach.
Most of us are comfortable with keeping the “lights on” for the next generation. That is a noble objective, but the obstacles are not only external but exist within our inability to adapt. Since the earliest time, our people have been brilliant about adapting while maintaining a core. There are only two explanations why a people ravaged by conflict and destruction would exist today — by the grace of God and His gift to us of adapting.
Stepan Piligian
Latest posts by Stepan Piligian (see all)
- Time to walk the talk…we can’t have it both ways - December 4, 2024
- It starts in the home with family - November 26, 2024
- The essence of community leadership found in love and hope - November 20, 2024
Be the first to comment